User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 16
| User talk: Purplebackpack89 |
|---|
 Archives |
Problem
[edit]You made political campaign a VA but forgot to close the discussion at WT:VAE. Just a heads up. J947 (contribs · mail) 03:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Done pbp 14:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. J947 (contribs · mail) 07:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
WikiCup 2018 March newsletter
[edit]And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.
Our top scorers in round 1 were:
Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.- Ceranthor, Numerounovedant,
Carbrera, 
Farang Rak Tham and 
Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia Day LA, March 31
[edit]| Wikipedia Day LA 2018 | |
|---|---|
 Please join us from 10:00 am - 5:00 pm on Saturday, March 31st for Wikipedia Day LA 2018 at the Ace Hotel in downtown Los Angeles. There will be speakers, panel discussions, a presentation on Wikidata, flash sessions, and a discussion about the formation of an LA User Group. There could be dramatic readings of LA-related talk pages, and there will be truly excellent cake. Please RSVP on the event page if you're thinking of joining us. We hope to see you there! JSFarman (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC) To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list. | |
Arts Datathon!
[edit]| LA County Civic Arts Datathon! | |
|---|---|
|
Please join us for the LA County Arts Commission Civic Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. Beginners are welcome! We'll provide training for new editors. Bob Hope Patriotic Hall, 1816 S. Figueroa St., Los Angeles, CA 90015. To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list. | |
WikiCup 2018 May newsletter
[edit]The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:
Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points- Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles- Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs
So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
WikiCup 2018 July newsletter
[edit]The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
- Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
- Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
- SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington
Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Retitle the L.A. Task Force
[edit]Your attention is called to the discussion here, suggesting retitling Los Angeles Task Force to Los Angeles County Task Force. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of List of Crayola colored pencil colors for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Crayola colored pencil colors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Crayola colored pencil colors until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 22:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Edit warring
[edit]You tagged me with an edit warring warning, so you certainly are aware that making the same identical edit a fourth time in less than 6 hours, as you just did, violates WP:3RR.
You got this off on the wrong foot by, rather than starting a discussion, you went straight to a vote, which you then yourself closed without ever justifying your text. Why won't you Talk about it? Agricolae (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Haven't I made how I want the article worded clear and why? Didn't I justify my rationale for closing in the comment that began "enacted"? Also, how can you possibly believe that there's any consensus at all for your position? Your problem isn't that I'm not talking, it's that you want no mention of the number of wives at all, you've made a rather weird and specious claim that mentioning a person's wives in the lede is "trivial", and you insist on having your way even though nobody agrees with you. pbp 19:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- How you want it worded, yes. You want it the way you want it. That much is crystal clear. Why you want it worded that way, not in the slightest. You have never said anything other than that you were upset about being reverted. Didn't you justify your rationale? No. Not when you initiated the discussion - you just said you put your text in and someone had the temerity to revert you. Not in your 'enacted' comment, when all you saiis is that you 'won' so you were putting it in. None of that addresses why. And as to what I want, you haven't the slightest idea because you refuse to engage. WHat I want is that, if we are going to mention wives in the lead, it should be a meaningful mention and not a trivial one. WHY WON'T YOU DISCUSS THIS??? Agricolae (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
If, as you said elsewhere, you are "pretty much at the end of the rope with Agricolae too...they keep claiming I 'didn't participate' in a discussion...I started!", then maybe you should quit pretending you participated in the discussion. Did you explain your position? No. Did you give your rationale? No. Did you try to find compromise? No. Did you say anything more than,'I got reverted, so let's vote', and then 'I won so I get to have it my way'? No, you didn't. If you don't want people to fault you for failing to discuss an issue, then it is really incumbent on you to DISCUSS THE ISSUE - not just start a vote without any prior discussion whatsoever, provide as your only rationale that you got reverted, and then not say another word until you come back to declare victory when you deem it to be over. That is not discussion. Agricolae (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Agricolae: Other people told you why you were wrong, so why do I in particular have to also explain it? Who your wife or husband is has pretty clearly been established, through a ton of precedent, that your wife or husband is a defining characteristic. Hundreds, thousands of articles mention wives or husbands in their leads, so saying Phil's shouldn't is really coming out of left. We wouldn't remove the wives from the lead of Phil's father-in law, so why would we remove it from Phil? An admin told you you were wrong and you're still at it. And now I got TRM trolling me. So, yeah, I'm pretty pissed off at you. pbp 05:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- And yet again, the same cognitive dissonance - if who someone's spouse is is so vitally important, WHY DO YOU KEEP INSISTING ON TEST THAT DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION! Wikipedia is by nature collaborative and time after time in this interaction, you haven't shown the least interest in collaborating, just in getting your text into the article, so I really don't care in the slightest if you are pissed off by the consequences of your behavior. Agricolae (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing you provide any alternative text, just removing text outright, which nobody but you and he who's under ArbCom sanctions supports. All you've done for the past day is say that I don't collaborate about 5,000 times. When you say "collaborate", what you really mean is, "let YOU have YOUR way". pbp 05:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- No, I said that you didn't discuss the issue, which is entirely accurate. You, on the other hand, have made a vital contribution to this interaction, given that the sum total of your input today amounts to nothing more than 'you lost', 'you lost', 'you lost'. When I say collaborate, I mean collaborate, to each explain our positions on the Talk page and see if we can't come up with something that both of us find satisfactory, but that is never going to happen if your immediate reaction on being reverted is to call for a vote, and then you never participate in the slightest in the consequent discussion. And now you have begun yet another vote, again without any attempt at discussing the issue ahead of time. Here is a thought, though - it may come as a surprise to you, but is possible, sometimes more productive and usually less acrimonious to use the Talk page to talk, to just have a discussion, present viewpoints and hammer out a mutually acceptable solution that renders any need for a vote superfluous. Try it sometime. Agricolae (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Again, you refuse to count anything as discussion unless you get your way. At the top of the RfC, I laid out my fundamental questions. In my "vote", I also laid out my rationale for supporting the position I did. What you want me to say in discussion is "Well, Agricolae's right." And I'm not going to say that, because your position that number of wives is trivial is patently ridiculous. I've DISCUSSED that with you already. You're equating discussion and consensus with "everybody gets what they want". That doesn't always happen. pbp 13:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- No, I said that you didn't discuss the issue, which is entirely accurate. You, on the other hand, have made a vital contribution to this interaction, given that the sum total of your input today amounts to nothing more than 'you lost', 'you lost', 'you lost'. When I say collaborate, I mean collaborate, to each explain our positions on the Talk page and see if we can't come up with something that both of us find satisfactory, but that is never going to happen if your immediate reaction on being reverted is to call for a vote, and then you never participate in the slightest in the consequent discussion. And now you have begun yet another vote, again without any attempt at discussing the issue ahead of time. Here is a thought, though - it may come as a surprise to you, but is possible, sometimes more productive and usually less acrimonious to use the Talk page to talk, to just have a discussion, present viewpoints and hammer out a mutually acceptable solution that renders any need for a vote superfluous. Try it sometime. Agricolae (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing you provide any alternative text, just removing text outright, which nobody but you and he who's under ArbCom sanctions supports. All you've done for the past day is say that I don't collaborate about 5,000 times. When you say "collaborate", what you really mean is, "let YOU have YOUR way". pbp 05:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- And yet again, the same cognitive dissonance - if who someone's spouse is is so vitally important, WHY DO YOU KEEP INSISTING ON TEST THAT DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION! Wikipedia is by nature collaborative and time after time in this interaction, you haven't shown the least interest in collaborating, just in getting your text into the article, so I really don't care in the slightest if you are pissed off by the consequences of your behavior. Agricolae (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Agricolae (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Talk
[edit]Would you mind leaving your comment intact at least for a while? Thanks. Sca (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Sca: It's your talk page, so I defer to you. But I will note this: The Rambling Man has threatened to take me to ANI today, but hasn't yet. I hope conflict between me and the many-times-blocked-and-sanctioned editor has died down. But if you start a discussion about TRM's behavior on ANI or somewhere like that, it's my belief that he will respond by demanding that I be indeffed. Not you, me. Now, his case for such an action is exceedingly weak, but he might just get lucky. You can still do it if you want to, but I want you to be made aware of that possibility. pbp 15:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Deleted per yr request. Sca (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. pbp 16:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Deleted per yr request. Sca (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Note to talk-page stalkers: this discussion held here and at User talk:Sca due to The Rambling Man's failure to engage in productive discussion at User talk:The Rambling Man
- @Sca: You know what? Do whatever you want. TRM said he was going to take me to ANI, but he hasn't (probably because he knows it'd blow up in his face). pbp 16:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Water under the bridge. Sca (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- His barb is worse than his byte.
Sca (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your wiki email to me
[edit]Hey there, it appears i have a notification that you have sent me a wiki email. I have lost access to the email i had signed up with over 6 years ago so i have changed my listed email to my current one, if you would like; you can send it again - but if it was related to me sending you the excel sheets i have; i'd have to consider it, i was going to release them when i had finished organizing them to fit specifically the vital lists (i cover more) but after my recent retirement i am not so sure if i should and should keep them for my own independent project. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuzzyG (talk • contribs) 07:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
TRM and VA
[edit]When did he start getting interested at VA all of a sudden? Near as I can figure, he was disappointed that, in his ITN fiefdom, people used VA as a rationale to express an opinion counter to his. His reaction? Demand that VA be destroyed. He may have been particularly disappointed that I was one of them (he has a history of buttinskying on me trying to BAIT me into the indef block of me that's one of his side quests). What do we do? I welcome comments on this from everybody other than TRM. Particularly @Doug Weller: pbp 13:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have no idea. As you know, I'm not happy with the way VA is set out inconsistently and even its faq ignored in practice. Doug Weller talk 15:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- The fundamental problem about VA is that there's a significant contingent who wants to hold off on removing articles until the project is full or nearly full. Perhaps a contingent large enough to block any reforms of the inclusion process. An additional problem is that TRM wants to judge the project now when it's still under construction. Any talk of deletion of VA5 should be postponed until we either a) complete the project, or b) conclude that it cannot be completed. pbp 15:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- BTW, @Doug Weller:, did you see the proposal I made for VA inclusion challenges? Are you going to weigh in? pbp 23:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's annoying that people are ignoring the faq, but hard to do anything about it if there is such a contingent other than try an RfC. I saw the inclusion thing, just wish it was not challenging but followed the faq about discussion needed to include. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: You can go ahead and launch an alternate proposal to apply it to additions. However, my read of the regulars right now is that requiring consensus to add when there is so much empty space on the list is going to be a dead letter. pbp 14:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: Saying stuff like "PBP honeypot bullshit" in an edit summary is a personal attack, and it is a clear violation of your civility restriction. If you're going to start an ANI discussion, start an ANI discussion (where I will make as damn sure as possible you get hit with a boomerang) and start it now. Otherwise, all you're doing is just raising vitriol and yelling a bunch of empty threats into the aether. That doesn't build the Wiki and it doesn't help your credibility pbp 14:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: I am seriously considering requesting you interact a two-way no-fault interaction ban between TRM and myself. TRM doesn't want me interacting with me on his talk page, and I don't want to interact with him anywhere else. pbp 14:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- First, I'm wrong about the faq and have posted this to Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5. I have no authority to interact an iban, that has to be done by the community. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Assess this for me. What would happen if...
- a) I reported TRM to ANI or ArbCom?
- b) TRM reported me to ANI or ArbCom?
- c) A third party reported both of us to ANI or ArbCom?
- Because, right now, I am fed up with TRM HOUNDing me, BAITing me and making comments about me in edit summaries. And I gather I'm not the only one who's pissed...wasn't there a Crisco something who left the project, blocked himself, and credited his displeasure to TRM? I'm almost to the point of welcoming a two-week block if it was followed by an indef IBAN. pbp 16:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- We only take cases where the community has shown it can't handle the situation. If you want an interaction ban, the best bet is ANI. I don't think there's any cause to block you if you go to ANI. Of course I can't guarantee anything will happen. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I just don't get it
[edit]@Cullen328:@Doug Weller: Why is everybody against me on the ANI thread? Everybody KNOWS that TRM is crass to all who disagree with him. You and others know that interaction between me and TRM is unproductive. Yet you don't seem to care that I'm approaching the point of leaving the project rather than have to continue dealing with him. And your solution seems to be to let him do whatever the hell he wants, even if that's refer to me as "honeypot bullshit" and reopen closed 3RR threads and the like. What gives here? Do people not really care if I leave? Really, the only thing I have any interest in at the moment is the VA project, but it's looking more and more like that's heading for the ashheap. I used to be interested in making FLs and FAs, but I gave up on it when I figured out that meant dealing with TRM.
I'm sorry, but I just need to let off some steam. It's not you I'm mad at, it's the system. pbp 00:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I do not see it as people being against you. Instead, it looks to me that people are unpersuaded by the evidence and how you have presented it. That 13 month old talk page template thing was worthless as evidence, and you led off with that. Nobody wants you to leave the project but rather people want you to voluntarily avoid interaction with TRM unless essential. This is a volunteer project and any editor in good standing can stop editing at any time, and then start again at any time. You must know that ANI is not a place to come to if you are looking for sympathy. Almost everyone wishes that TRM would not be so combative but there is no consensus that such behavior alone requires community restrictions. Of course I too wish he would change but that is highly unlikely. As for "honeypot bullshit", please note that "bullshit" is not a word commonly applied to people, but rather to behavior and the quality of an argument. So, it is not a personal attack. It is a criticism of your edits. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: I have withdrawn the proposal to avoid any BOOMerang. But some, Swarm in particular, seem to go even farther than you...they acted like if TRM reverts me (presumably anywhere, as they did not qualify where), I should just roll over and take it. And that's not fair. I shouldn't be forced to be a doormat just because TRM can't get along with anyone, nor should I be forced to be a doormat because of TRM's supposed contribution record. I'm disappointed that there's no consensus to ask TRM to avoid me unless essential. And, I'm sorry, the edits I've made to the VA project are not honeypot bullshit. Not even the ones where I say that TRM is at VA in bad faith. If your first edit is to throw around the possibility that VA be deleted or restructured, it's hard to think of yourself as being there is the spirit of cooperation. And if VA is MfDed, I will participate, regardless of who starts the discussion. pbp 01:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Cullen's basically right. I've never seen an enforceable non-avoidance decision, so I'm not surprised that didn't happen. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
WikiCup 2018 September newsletter
[edit]The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:
- Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.- Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
- Other contestants who qualified for the final round were
Nova Crystallis, Iazyges, SounderBruce, 
Kosack and Ceranthor.
During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Vital articles "new metapage"
[edit]I though about creating the new metapage, for example titdled as::Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/to do... In this way wew could (for example) found all of orphans on our list. I do not think that just wikidata entires is good metric for vitality. For example Polandball has much more wikidata entires than Penny Arcade but fewer what links here and fewer google results and is fewer vital. Easter basket has fewer wikidata entires than święconka but is more vital than święconka etc. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Do it! And I may have additional suggestions for what I want a bot to find out. pbp 14:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- I do not have any bot. So it is impossible task to me. @power~enwiki has PowerBOT (talk · contribs) so maybe he could do it? List with articles under 10 link from the level 5 would be interesing and valuable to analyse. Which additional suggestion do you have? Dawid2009 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- For biographies, IDK if a bot can get birth and death date, but that would be useful. pbp 19:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- For biographes, I think that bot can get pictogram for gender (based on wikidaata) but I am not sure bot can get birth and death date. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- In my opinion resonable would be if bot include only links from main space with omnission of links from disambiguation/list pages. And with omnission of links from templates. Sometimes articles have a lot of links because of the articles have templates each other. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- For biographes, I think that bot can get pictogram for gender (based on wikidaata) but I am not sure bot can get birth and death date. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- For biographies, IDK if a bot can get birth and death date, but that would be useful. pbp 19:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- I do not have any bot. So it is impossible task to me. @power~enwiki has PowerBOT (talk · contribs) so maybe he could do it? List with articles under 10 link from the level 5 would be interesing and valuable to analyse. Which additional suggestion do you have? Dawid2009 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what is wanted, but I could generate a page with some metadata about articles fairly easily. There shouldn't be any orphan-pages on the list; if there are any I'd likely propose removing them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- The orophans are articles with 0 links from any space. I am interested in articles with fewer than 10 links from main space (=articles), not necesiarilly with 0 links. Some controversial people on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5 have several links. Interesing would be comprasion these articles with other articles which have few links (in sense: what links here) and not only among biographies. @power~enwiki What are you quite not sure? Dawid2009 (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- @ power~enwiki, @pbp , @Gizza When I have told: with omnision of templates I meant with omnision of templates. For example easter basket has a lot of what links here due tue to a lot of articles links in Template:Easter each other. When I told with omnission of disambiguation and lists I also meant with mnision of disambiguations and lists. For example (it is not listed but good example) Paper soccer has only links from disambiguations and lists, practicarly it is orophan in main space. Based on what links here (with omnision of lists, disambiguation pages, and bonus from templates) we could check vitality. It is quite good metric and eventually we could found not listed parents topics for these articles. I suggest to create the new page Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/articles with the fewest links Dawid2009 (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know of any easy way to exclude template links when calculating backlinks. From a quick run, there are a few orphans or near-orphans (Vincenzo Pipino has only one mainspace link to it) but most pages have over 100 links, often due to templates. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
voting on the level 5
[edit]Do you can add information to introducion, that nominator should try add source if it is possible? Level 5 has a lot of various topic. Nominator should give sources to couraged other users to discuss. What do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think you should open up that for further discussion. pbp 21:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- What do you think about change process of voting? I have pretared suggestion here if you do not mind you can change something and copyedit my English. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
7th Annual Los Angeles Wiknic
[edit]Sunday, September 30, 11:00-4:00 PM
Pan Pacific Park, 7600 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90036
Hang out. Consume crowd-sourced BBQ! Bask in the glory of late September in Los Angeles (and the glory
of our new user group, Wikimedians of Los Angeles).
RSVP (and volunteer) here.
We hope to see you there! JSFarman (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Join our Facebook group, or follow us on Twitter!
Disambiguation link notification for September 12
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MAX Blue Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interstate 84 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 6
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arthur (season 10), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Law and Order (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
WikiCup 2018 November newsletter
[edit]The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is 
Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:
- Courcelles (submissions)
- Kosack (submissions)
- Kees08 (submissions)
SounderBruce (submissions)- Cas Liber (submissions)
- Nova Crystallis (submissions)
- Iazyges (submissions)
- Ceranthor (submissions)
All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:
- Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
- Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
- Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
- Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
- Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.
Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.
Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).
Nomination of A-G requirements for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A-G requirements is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-G requirements until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
My ArbCom votes
[edit]Courcelles-YES, DGG-YES, Drmies-HELLZ YES, Fred-NO (Cuz of the hot water he's in), Gorilla-YES, Lourdes-NO (I'd like to see her be a successful admin for another year), Mkdw-YES, Robert-YES, The rest-BLANK
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, Purplebackpack89. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Liberty Bowl
[edit]Hi - a quick note about your addition to the Liberty Bowl article on November 18, when you added a table of appearances by conference. Wanted to see if you had a source for that, or perhaps notes from when you built the table. I ask because the total appearances don't add up; through last year's game there have been 59 editions of the bowl, thus there should be 118 total appearances. The table currently sums to 114, so there are 4 appearances still to be accounted for. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- I was able to find my notes from that and I'll double-check my math pbp 04:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks! If by chance you might have any notes on the Sugar Bowl... the W/L balance is off by a game there, which I'm trying to sort out. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'll try to get to it by the end of the week. pbp 15:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks! If by chance you might have any notes on the Sugar Bowl... the W/L balance is off by a game there, which I'm trying to sort out. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)